Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Good: House GOP to vote on Violence Against Women Act next week. Facepalm: They stripped out coverage for lesbians and Native Americans - AGAIN   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 257
    More: Asinine, House GOP, Violence Against Women Act, GOP, LGBT, reauthorization, United States House Committee on Rules, House Majority Leader, domestic violence  
•       •       •

3453 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Feb 2013 at 4:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



257 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-22 05:55:37 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/


Stop lying. The VAWA covers domestic violence against me.
 
2013-02-22 05:56:12 PM  
Men. Against men.
 
2013-02-22 05:58:04 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: lennavan:
I still don't get the issue. When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.

You're absolutely right!
What a nifty idea: This new law gives Federal prosecutors a strong incentive to do exactly the opposite of what they do when they get these cases now!


So if I gather what you're saying, we need tribunal jurisdiction of cases because you totally think federal prosecutors don't do their jobs.  I mean the current laws and all are fine but we should turn shiat over to tribunal courts because prosecutors don't do their jobs.

You're such a smart guy with such great ideas!
 
2013-02-22 05:58:12 PM  

vicioushobbit: I hope a meteorite strikes the next person to post "isn't violence against women already protected?" People who can't read more than a title shouldn't be allowed to comment on the bill.


I hope the next person who says BUT WHAT ABOUT MEN is punched in the groin by Mike Tyson.
 
2013-02-22 05:58:15 PM  

BMulligan: I alone am best: Submitting to native American courts out.

Mind if I ask why?


Well, the biggest reason being the sixth amendment. There are a few other issues though, how are the judges appointed, juries selected? Is it an all indian court system or are non-natives allowed to participate in it?
 
2013-02-22 05:59:47 PM  
It's about not wanting to expand the jurisdiction of tribal courts. The Republican position makes sense insofar as one might want to avoid carving out one solitary exception to the general rule that tribal courts shall have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants. On the other hand, tribal courts have extensive jurisdiction over domestic relations matters even where one party is not Indian, and there are immense benefits in allowing the tribal courts to address all of the issues at play in a particular family, especially since the tribes have been in the vanguard of the so-called "wellness court" movement which seeks to treat the legal, medical, and behavioral issues of a broken family holistically.

I had heard that white men that went onto the reservation and beat/raped indian women were not prosecuted. I can see how that can happen with what you say here.
 
2013-02-22 05:59:49 PM  

vicioushobbit: I hope a meteorite strikes the next person to post "isn't violence against women already protected?" People who can't read more than a title shouldn't be allowed to comment on the bill.


As a person currently standing in a crowd of people I don't like, isn't violence against women already pro{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
 
2013-02-22 06:00:49 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Did they take out the redundant visa portion for illegal immigrants too?

I can't click on huffington post articles anymore.  What nutbag puts two autoplay videos on a site?


AOL.
 
2013-02-22 06:02:51 PM  
 
2013-02-22 06:03:41 PM  
Holy shiat you posted a PJ Media link in earnest ahh hahaha. Byeeeeeee.
 
2013-02-22 06:03:48 PM  
Days Since GOP Burned Themselves With Women Voters Forever: 0
 
2013-02-22 06:03:49 PM  

Jackson Herring: neongoats: Meh, I think it would have better served everyone by being named something something domestic violence act and protect all types, LGBT or straight men and women from domestic violence.

IT DOES farkING PROTECT ALL TYPES


Even comic sans?
 
2013-02-22 06:05:03 PM  

cptjeff: Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.


Actually, all it would take is an Executive order .... as to why we dont have ENDA, I blame Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi for dropping the ball big time.
 
2013-02-22 06:08:26 PM  
What kind of maniac hates Native American lesbians?
 
2013-02-22 06:09:33 PM  
If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.
 
2013-02-22 06:11:38 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Why Native Americans? I can see their hate for lesbians because Jesus totally forgot to specifically mention that his teachings applied to them when he said that they applied to everyone, but what's the deal with the Indians?


I've been studying up history around the Fort Smith area because my mom lives there.  That's the True Grit town where Marshal Rooster Cougburn hailed from.

At one time, Oklahoma was the area where the United States dumped the Tribes.  By law, the Indians were not allowed to arrest or try any white man on the reservation.   This was actually changed by Congress and upheld by the Courts in 2004 .

Therefore, all the criminals would head out to the Indian Territory after committing crimes. Tribal lawmen couldn't touch them.

Marshals were paid to track down bad guys-which they would only see once they brought someone in.  The Marshals had to bring them in alive, otherwise they would have to  pay for the funeral expenses and fines.

So basically, at one time, you could do anything you wanted if you were a white person on tribal land.
 
2013-02-22 06:12:53 PM  

Jackson Herring: GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/

Stop lying. The VAWA covers domestic violence against me.


Jackson Herring: Men. Against men.



I'm going with the original wording, because it's more fun that way. The law has a special "Jackson Herring" clause, and I'm okay with that.
 
2013-02-22 06:13:00 PM  
Is there even a plausible reason for them to do this, beyond aspirations of Bond villain-hood?
 
2013-02-22 06:14:40 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: So basically, at one time, you could do anything you wanted if you were a white person on tribal land.


You can pretty much still do that
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/us/native-americans-struggle-with-h i gh-rate-of-rape.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2012 /05/23/us/native-americans-struggle-with-hi gh-rate-of-rape.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/06/171310945/south-dakota-tribes-accuse-s ta te-of-violating-indian-welfare-act

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/15/164688735/loophole-lets-toxic-oil-wate r- flow-over-indian-land
 
2013-02-22 06:17:03 PM  

vudutek: Spinelees little farktards.


In a nut(sack) shell...^^^^^^^ THIS
 
2013-02-22 06:21:21 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Jackson Herring: GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/

Stop lying. The VAWA covers domestic violence against me.

Jackson Herring: Men. Against men.


I'm going with the original wording, because it's more fun that way. The law has a special "Jackson Herring" clause, and I'm okay with that.


I am pretty vulnerable
 
2013-02-22 06:21:22 PM  

Elandriel: I'm reminded of alywa's post from another thread.  In literally every situation where there is a clear choice as to right or wrong, the GOP deliberately chooses the wrong side.


Why? Because fark you, that's why. Vote for me or I'll have to hurt you again.
 
2013-02-22 06:23:47 PM  

alienated: cptjeff: Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Actually, all it would take is an Executive order .... as to why we dont have ENDA, I blame Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi for dropping the ball big time.


Well, for the purposes of the federal government. ENDA would apply to everyone, including actors like state and local governments, a fair number of which actually have fired people for nothing but sexual orientation.

And yeah, the Democratic Leadership seems to have just forgotten about ENDA. If I had to guess, I'd say that the holdup was the Republican obstruction in the Senate- with the way they've gummed the works, only so many things can get through even if you do have the votes, which is a big thing the modest filibuster reform we did get was intended to address. Give Harry Reid that play now, and he could execute. And if the Senate could pass it, which I believe they could with a decent outside push (Could be a nice focus for the next State of the Union), and by a decent bipartisan margin, it would be very hard politically for the House to stop it. Actually, it can and should take a similar course to VAWA. If the House doesn't pass it, it provides democrats a very nice bludgeon for 2014.
 
2013-02-22 06:25:53 PM  

lennavan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: give me doughnuts: Looks as if they left stuff in for Native American women, subs.

Of course, they could be included under the rest of the bill if you wanted to strip the last bits of sovereingty away from the Native Americans. After all, what's one more treaty broken.

Indirectly, it does.

The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.  However, they inserted additional language that allows the accused to have the trial moved to a non-reservation court if they feel that their "rights" are being violated.
Given the option to move a trial to a different court, where the tribal prosecution has little/no jurisdiction, and limited ability to present their case, what do you think the accused will do every single time?

I still don't get the issue.  When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.


And the new court, more often than not, won't prosecute. They usually don't get it moved to a federal court, but a municipal court. Happens all the time. Someone commits a crime on a reservation, then flees. They make it off the reservation, they won't be prosecuted. The local sheriffs or whatever won't arrest the person because it didn't happen in their jurisdiction, the local courts won't extradite for whatever reason, so the person walks.
 
2013-02-22 06:28:47 PM  

BMulligan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.

When you say "non-member," do you mean non-Indian or do you mean Indians who are not members of the tribe served by the tribal court? Tribal courts already lack jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants - if the victim is also non-Indian then state courts have jurisdiction; if the victim is Indian, then jurisdiction lies in federal court pursuant to the General Crimes Act.


That's something that's never made any sense to me. You commit the crime on a reservation, the tribal courts should get to prosecute, unless it's something that goes way bigger, in which case it goes up to a federal district court. If an American is arrested for a crime in Mexico, they don't get to demand their trial be in the U.S. so the same rule should apply to reservations.
 
2013-02-22 06:30:28 PM  

alienated: cptjeff: Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Actually, all it would take is an Executive order .... as to why we dont have ENDA, I blame Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi for dropping the ball big time.


cptjeff: alienated: cptjeff: Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Actually, all it would take is an Executive order .... as to why we dont have ENDA, I blame Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi for dropping the ball big time.

Well, for the purposes of the federal government. ENDA would apply to everyone, including actors like state and local governments, a fair number of which actually have fired people for nothing but sexual orientation.

And yeah, the Democratic Leadership seems to have just forgotten about ENDA. If I had to guess, I'd say that the holdup was the Republican obstruction in the Senate- with the way they've gummed the works, only so many things can get through even if you do have the votes, which is a big thing the modest filibuster reform we did get was intended to address. Give Harry Reid that play now, and he could execute. And if the Senate could pass it, which I believe they could with a decent outside push (Could be a nice focus for the next State of the Union), and by a decent bipartisan margin, it would be very hard politically for the House to stop it. Actually, it can and should take a similar course to VAWA. If the House doesn't pass it, it provides democrats a very nice bludgeon for 2014.


If they push the ENDA, I hope they leave trans rights in for once.
 
2013-02-22 06:38:13 PM  

Jackson Herring: GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/

Stop lying. The VAWA covers domestic violence against me.


Even if it didn't cover men, consider the differing situations. What's going to hurt more, being hit by someone half your size, or twice your size?
 
2013-02-22 06:42:18 PM  

Exception Collection: If they push the ENDA, I hope they leave trans rights in for once.


Didn't realize they had been leaving it out. Yeah, that definitely needs to be included.
 
2013-02-22 06:42:51 PM  

LectertheChef: Jackson Herring: GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/

Stop lying. The VAWA covers domestic violence against me.

Even if it didn't cover men, consider the differing situations. What's going to hurt more, being hit by someone half your size, or twice your size?


Do they have a baseball bat?  Because that would hurt either way.
 
2013-02-22 06:42:57 PM  
Is anyone else not surprised that the GOP is ok with violence against minorities and gays?

I'm actually surprised they aren't against violence against women.
 
2013-02-22 06:45:49 PM  

LectertheChef: BMulligan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.

When you say "non-member," do you mean non-Indian or do you mean Indians who are not members of the tribe served by the tribal court? Tribal courts already lack jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants - if the victim is also non-Indian then state courts have jurisdiction; if the victim is Indian, then jurisdiction lies in federal court pursuant to the General Crimes Act.

That's something that's never made any sense to me. You commit the crime on a reservation, the tribal courts should get to prosecute, unless it's something that goes way bigger, in which case it goes up to a federal district court. If an American is arrested for a crime in Mexico, they don't get to demand their trial be in the U.S. so the same rule should apply to reservations.


That makes perfect sense, which is why it will never fly in any legislature in this country.
 
2013-02-22 06:46:03 PM  

LectertheChef: BMulligan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.

When you say "non-member," do you mean non-Indian or do you mean Indians who are not members of the tribe served by the tribal court? Tribal courts already lack jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants - if the victim is also non-Indian then state courts have jurisdiction; if the victim is Indian, then jurisdiction lies in federal court pursuant to the General Crimes Act.

That's something that's never made any sense to me. You commit the crime on a reservation, the tribal courts should get to prosecute, unless it's something that goes way bigger, in which case it goes up to a federal district court. If an American is arrested for a crime in Mexico, they don't get to demand their trial be in the U.S. so the same rule should apply to reservations.


Legally, the tribes are dependent sovereigns. Their sovereignty survives only at the pleasure of Congress.
 
2013-02-22 06:48:57 PM  

Cpl.D: Is there even a plausible reason for them to do this, beyond aspirations of Bond villain-hood?


$. It needs funding. Because that's what the bill mostly does, provide (fund) programs that help victims and assist in the prosecution of perps.
 
2013-02-22 06:51:52 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Because that's what the bill mostly does, provide (fund) programs that help victims and assist in the prosecution of perps.


Yeah better cut that .000002% of the deficit.  Fiscal responsibility and all.

/not blaming you for making the point. blaming them for being pedantic asses
 
2013-02-22 06:53:16 PM  

Exception Collection: If they push the ENDA, I hope they leave trans rights in for once.


Even Eddie Munster , err, paul ryan said he would vote for enda, but the trans part had to go.
I guess we make him feel icky
 
2013-02-22 06:53:19 PM  

Snarfangel: vicioushobbit: I hope a meteorite strikes the next person to post "isn't violence against women already protected?" People who can't read more than a title shouldn't be allowed to comment on the bill.

As a person currently standing in a crowd of people I don't like, isn't violence against women already pro{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER


You made me lol.
 
2013-02-22 06:56:32 PM  

lennavan: demaL-demaL-yeH: lennavan:
I still don't get the issue. When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.

You're absolutely right!
What a nifty idea: This new law gives Federal prosecutors a strong incentive to do exactly the opposite of what they do when they get these cases now!

So if I gather what you're saying, we need tribunal jurisdiction of cases because you totally think

know federal prosecutors don't do their jobs.  I mean the current laws and all are fine but we should turn shiat over to tribunal courts because prosecutors don't do their jobs.

You're such a smart guy with such great ideas!


I will use short words for you here:
The Feds can try these crimes.
Tribes can not when the guy/gal on trial is not part of the tribe.
These crimes are not a big deal for the Feds.
Feds do not try them* 'cause they are "small" crimes.


*Empirical fact.

/They wait for a tribe member to die from the abuse, then they prosecute.
//This why the tribal courts must have jurisdiction for this kind of case.
///Got it? Good.
 
2013-02-22 07:00:52 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Feds do not try them* 'cause they are "small" crimes.


So can I rape you?  Since it's apparently not such a big deal...
 
2013-02-22 07:02:22 PM  

KiltedBastich: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Let me see if I understand what you mean, socialism facilitated by technology in order to avoid or curtail the kind of excesses, intrusions and abuses that traditional bureaucratic socialism fosters? Please elaborate if I am in error.

I am quite willing to discuss the idea, but I want to first make sure I understand what you are asking. No point in debating the topic if we end up misunderstanding each other's positions.


Capitalism will end when scarcity ends. However, right now, we are in a world of scarcity, which is what makes capitalism work for now. The idea is to unsure in Socialism via technological advancement.
 
2013-02-22 07:03:19 PM  

cman: KiltedBastich: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Let me see if I understand what you mean, socialism facilitated by technology in order to avoid or curtail the kind of excesses, intrusions and abuses that traditional bureaucratic socialism fosters? Please elaborate if I am in error.

I am quite willing to discuss the idea, but I want to first make sure I understand what you are asking. No point in debating the topic if we end up misunderstanding each other's positions.

Capitalism will end when scarcity ends. However, right now, we are in a world of scarcity, which is what makes capitalism work for now. The idea is to usher in Socialism via technological advancement.


God damn autocorrect

Fixt
 
2013-02-22 07:04:35 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: demaL-demaL-yeH: Feds do not try them* 'cause they are "small" crimes.

So can I rape you?  Since it's apparently not such a big deal...


Is this Fark Opposite Day, глупец?
 
2013-02-22 07:16:10 PM  

LectertheChef: lennavan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: give me doughnuts: Looks as if they left stuff in for Native American women, subs.

Of course, they could be included under the rest of the bill if you wanted to strip the last bits of sovereingty away from the Native Americans. After all, what's one more treaty broken.

Indirectly, it does.

The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.  However, they inserted additional language that allows the accused to have the trial moved to a non-reservation court if they feel that their "rights" are being violated.
Given the option to move a trial to a different court, where the tribal prosecution has little/no jurisdiction, and limited ability to present their case, what do you think the accused will do every single time?

I still don't get the issue.  When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.

And the new court, more often than not, won't prosecute. They usually don't get it moved to a federal court, but a municipal court. Happens all the time. Someone commits a crime on a reservation, then flees. They make it off the reservation, they won't be prosecuted. The local sheriffs or whatever won't arrest the person because it didn't happen in their jurisdiction, the local courts won't extradite for whatever reason, so the person walks.



Which is why it makes complete sense to make it a federal issue.

I think the problem I have with this whole deal is it seems like people who side with this part of VAWA think that the (R)'s are doing their very best to help criminals get away with crimes on tribal land.  That's not what it's about.  Tribal lands are still within US borders, they are considered "domestic, dependent nations."  This is about ensuring US citizens who go on to tribal lands are still afforded their rights as US Citizens.

The summary is linked, you should give it a read (focus on 903, page 12).  The way it reads to me you appeal to a federal court if:
1) Your constitutional rights are violated.
2) appeal a final judgement
3) appeal and seek habeas relief.

You all are making it sound like you can just get the trial moved no problem for no reason.  You can't.  You can only get it moved if you can demonstrate something.  This places the burden of proof on the defendant.  Unless as a defendant you can show your constitutional rights are violated, or enough proof to get your case overturned, they're just gonna deny your appeal.

As for people who are claiming things about the tribal prosecutors, the very next paragraph authorizes $5 million a year, for 5 years to assist tribes with this very specific issue.
 
2013-02-22 07:17:04 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: These crimes are not a big deal for the Feds.


So what you are saying is, the feds will not give a shiat, turn down the appeal and the tribal court ruling will stand?

WHAT AN OUTRAGE
 
2013-02-22 07:21:24 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: //This why the tribal courts must have jurisdiction for this kind of case.


No one is taking jurisdiction away from tribal courts.  You clearly have no idea what the new section says or does.  We will now spend dozens of posts going back and forth where you say what you totally believe to be true and I quote actual sections from the actual document demonstrating your imagination and reality don't match up.  In the end I'll make a few comments on your relative intelligence level, given your staunch opposition to facts, reality and evidence.  Those comments will likely get me a temporary vacation from Fark.com.

So how bout we just skip to the part where I call you an idiot because we both know nothing I post will ever convince you to actually read the document and familiarize yourself with reality.  You're far too dug in with your imagination.

Idiot.
 
2013-02-22 07:27:18 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: So can I rape you?


Only if he says no.
 
2013-02-22 07:29:33 PM  

Crunch61: Doktor_Zhivago: So can I rape you?

Only if he says no.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-22 07:31:04 PM  

BunkoSquad: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Just like in 2012, the GOP is writing the DNC's ads for them.

Guess they didn't need any female votes in 2014/16

The GOP "voter ID" platform for the next election: women need 3 forms of photo ID (one topless), and either a notarized permission slip from their husband or a doctor's note certifying an intact hymen.


Also, a transvaginal ultrasound as well as a doctor's note indicating she is not menstruating, lest her female hormones cloud her judgment.
 
2013-02-22 07:45:38 PM  

Jetskimoo: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Cman: "You know what would really solve this problem?  A metric ton of UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ <the system, is down> UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ
Anyone else: "WTF, why would you do that?  you want more state control over..."
Cman: "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my WUBS!
Anyone else: Wubs?  What in the hell are those?
Cman:"They're from my bass cannon!  Haven't you heard of...oh, never mind.  Crank the congressional bass to 11!!"

*DJ cuts in* and that was Vinyl Scratch's latest hit, 'All my Feels - the Democratic Underground Mix'.  Up next is the latest mash-up from DJ Skinnyhead, 'Counting to Potato'.

[t2.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Me:  Heh, that's cool, someone got the MLP refere.....Wait a minute!!!!

BAH GAWD KING, MY WIFE'S ON FARK!   *runs*
 
2013-02-22 07:47:31 PM  

LectertheChef: lennavan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: give me doughnuts: Looks as if they left stuff in for Native American women, subs.

Of course, they could be included under the rest of the bill if you wanted to strip the last bits of sovereingty away from the Native Americans. After all, what's one more treaty broken.

Indirectly, it does.

The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.  However, they inserted additional language that allows the accused to have the trial moved to a non-reservation court if they feel that their "rights" are being violated.
Given the option to move a trial to a different court, where the tribal prosecution has little/no jurisdiction, and limited ability to present their case, what do you think the accused will do every single time?

I still don't get the issue.  When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.

And the new court, more often than not, won't prosecute. They usually don't get it moved to a federal court, but a municipal court. Happens all the time. Someone commits a crime on a reservation, then flees. They make it off the reservation, they won't be prosecuted. The local sheriffs or whatever won't arrest the person because it didn't happen in their jurisdiction, the local courts won't extradite for whatever reason, so the person walks.


Ding!  that about sums it all up
 
2013-02-22 07:48:36 PM  
Boo, cman missed his political rave party!  XD
 
Displayed 50 of 257 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report